About this Site

PM5620: Concerning Free Speech

Free speech or freedom of speech refers to the idea
that one should be allowed to express one's thoughts or opinions, with
only the minimal necessary limitations. However, which limitations are
necessary and which are not is a fiercely disputed question. Most people
agree that freedom of speech should be significant in its scope; most
people also agree that there have to be some limitations imposed, for
the protection of others and of society as a whole; the dispute is
concerning which limitations are necessary and which are unjustified.

Maratreanism believes in free speech, but reasonable limitations
can be placed upon it. For example, the death penalty is a form of most
wicked murder, and advocacy for the death penalty is incitement to
murder. Incitement to murder must be prohibited. Hence, free speech does
not include the right to advocate for the death penalty.

Many countries provide protection of freedom of speech in their
constitutions - the most famous such clause is the First Amendment to
the US Constitution. It is also guaranteed by a number of international
treaties - the most notable of these would be the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (a global treaty adopted by the United Nations) and the European Convention on Human Rights (a European treaty adopted by the Council of Europe).

The term 'speech' is commonly used broadly, to include not just
words and writing, but also images, photographs, film and video,
computer games, signs in protests, etc. Related concepts are freedom of the press, which refers specifically to journalists and newspapers; and freedom of association, which includes the right to hold meetings, public assemblies, and protests. Another term, broadly equivalent, is freedom of thought.

Some forms of speech commonly restricted include (in no particular order):

a classic example, taken from the jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court, is falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
Most people agree that such speech - speech which poses the immediate
threat of severe chaos and public disorder, and otherwise serves no good
purpose - can be prohibited

making false statements with the purpose to deceive or cheat others - e.g. fraud

making false statements to government authorities, especially in court - e.g. perjury

urging violent or criminal acts, e.g. a mob boss asking for
someone to be murdered. Many countries draw a distinction between speech
urge a particular and immediate criminal act, vs. speech which just
advocates crime in general. For example, the former is illegal in both
the US and Australia; the later is constitutionally protected as free
speech under US law, but subject to censorship and prosecution under
Australian law

speech which reveals secrets of national security

speech which reveals corporate private information - trade secrets

speech which reveals personal information of private individuals without a valid justification - invasion of privacy

the following prohibitions are often collectively termed 'hate speech':

speech which insults religion - blasphemy - or even just speech which disagrees with another religion, or with a religion with government endorsement

speech which urges hatred of racial or ethnic groups

speech seen to criticize a particular gender

speech seen to criticize a particular sexual orientation (especially homosexuality or bisexuality)

making false or unproven negative statement about an individual or business - defamation, slander, libel

protests at funerals - as practiced in particular by the Westboro Baptist Church;
the US Supreme Court ruled in 2011 in Snyder v. Phelps that it was
their free speech right to do so - although critics charged the right to
free speech does not extend to actions as blatantly uncivil, offensive
and hurtful as to protest a funeral

Most people would agree that at least some of the above restrictions
are valid - few people would agree that they all are. The problem is how
to decide which restrictions are reasonable and which restrictions are
not - opinions differ from person to person and from worldview to
worldview. Every country needs to strike a balance between free speech
and other competing concerns; but different countries strike that
balance in different ways.

Another issue is how are legal restrictions on speech to be enforced. One system, known as prior restraint,
requires government censors to review publications for legal compliance
before they can be published. This system is very common in
totalitarian regimes. Even in non-totalitarian societies, it still
sometimes exists, but not to the same extent - for example, the
Australian government requires films and computer games to be reviewed
by government censors before publication - although the same
requirement is not imposed on many other forms of media, such as
newspapers, television, radio or the Internet. The US represents a very
different approach - the US Supreme Court has found that prior restraint
is unconstitutional. So, the system of film and computer game
censorship which exists in Australia would not be permitted in the US
without amending the constitution. The alternative approach, is to not
impose pre-publication restraints, but then provide for legal processes
to deal with violations after they occur - either through civil suits or
criminal prosecution. Even in countries where pre-publication
restraints exist, post-publication restraints are also needed, since it
is impossible for government censors to approve all speech before it
occurs